Gordon
Murray is one of the most famed car designers and engineers in the world and
his most famous creation in the eyes of many enthusiasts is the McLaren F1 that was the
world's fastest production car for years. Murray has since turned his attention
to creating cars that are green and powered by batteries rather than fuel
swilling cars capable of 200 mph top speeds.

Murray has unveiled a new electric minicar called the T.27.
The EV is hailed as the world's most efficient EV and is just as ungainly as
its predecessor, the T.25. Murray worked with powertrain partner Zytek
Automotive to bring the new T-27 to market and the new car uses a lightweight
and fully integrated electric motor, control system, and battery for the best
efficiency.

The T.27’s specs include a 25 kW electric motor and a 12 kWh lithium-ion
battery pack. The car is very small with a length of 98 inches, width of 51
inches, and height of 63 inches. The car weighs in a 1,500 pounds with the
battery and has a 70-inch wheelbase. The range on a single charge is expected
to be 100 miles.

Murray said, "The Technology Strategy Board have been incredibly
supportive of the T.27 programme and together we are working to keep this in
the United Kingdom. It is a great opportunity to work with Zytek
Automotive and our other partners on this very exciting programme. We
always strive to lead the way in automotive design and our current goal is to
maximise efficiency of electric vehicles."

Insideline reports that the car
seats three and is slated to debut on November 5 at the RAC Future Car
Challenge. The car was constructed with financial backing of the British Government
Technology Strategy Board.

Pricing hasn’t
been announced, but the T.25 sold
for a relatively cheap $9,000.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Well my brain exploded when I read that, but I still had enough left to have figured out that this thing is about half the cost and gets much better effective MPG than the sucker(tm) car. Not that it matters to US drivers as the car is exclusively UK, as it probably should be.

I once got stuck behind a SMART car. I panicked. At the next available opportunity I passed them in a slightly-less-than-legal way and carried on my way while they smugly (and slowly) caused large amounts of traffic congestion behind them.

The top speed on this car is 105kph. Aerodynamic drag is negligible. The weight is the biggest problem. Second would be the inherent instability of a car that is taller than it is wide, forcing you to keep a steady pace. This thing is a snail, and not the racing snail from The Neverending Story. Mileage isn't affected at all.

You are correct, but all vehicles have the bulk of their mass at the bottom of the car. Unless you count the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile. I mentioned the pace because at higher speeds the additional force is multiplied by the height of the walls, which act as levers. What's steady at low speeds becomes squirrelly at high speeds.

Not that I expect anyone to be in this kind of danger. With a top speed of 65mph in 15 seconds, and a weight-power ratio of about 44lbs/hp this car would be lucky to hit 45mph. No sane person would take this on a highway. This is likely intended for those little towns in Italy and such where the streets are literally 10 feet wide or less.

I call smart cars, Not-so-smart cars. In real world usage a fiesta or a focus will get better mileage. The only way a Not-so-smart car makes sense is in areas that space(or smug) is a higher priority than absolute fuel economy.

One morning driving to work I was behind a Smart Car that had a personalized plate that read SIPGAS. Of course following it through town I was getting irritated just from the smug factor the guy was giving off. Then about half way through town he turned into a gas station, and the car that had been in front of him I could now see. It was a Corvette, and it has a personalized plate that read BGDEAL. I think I laughed all the way to work after that, and wish I had had a video camera, you just can't make something like that up as much as I wish I could.

quote: Why do these EVs not consider the drag that their blunt noses bring into play?

Seems I read somewhere that one of the most aerodynamic shapes is a tear drop, where the large end is pointed forward and the tapered tail is what causes the best reduction in drag. The drag comes more from a vacuum being created behind the vehicle than a blunt nose. If you look at the first Bonneville Salt Flats racers that build cars out of discarded external fighter plane fuel tanks from WW2 you will notice that is how they look also.

Well, if you want to delve into the aerodynamics of it... There are two major components to drag (these are not the only ones, they're just the major ones):

Surface drag - basically friction between the skin of the car and the fluid (air in this case) running past it.

Form drag - energy expended by the car to displace the fluid, and as the fluid returns after the car has passed. (On ships, this wasted energy shows up as ship's wake directly behind it.)

At high velocities like what a plane travels at, the form drag dominates. So the teardrop shape helps a lot for planes.

A low velocities, as long as your shape is relatively smooth (no big, flat appendages sticking out), the surface drag dominates. In particular, cutting off the tail end abruptly can actually result in lower drag. Doing so increases your form drag, but the loss of all the surface area associated with the long teardrop tail means a larger reduction in surface drag. Your net drag is thus reduced.